Suggested first topic(s): what qualities or methods are required for someone to be considered a philosopher, and how does this relate to Christian thinkers/writers? Can someone be both a philosopher and theologian? What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem, anyway?

There was a time when philosophers were somewhat ascetic and celibate, and this was required for the mind to be enlightened with philosophy. I think there's at least some truth to a life of some sort of practice to think clearly of what the truth might be.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

There was a time when philosophers were somewhat ascetic and celibate, and this was required for the mind to be enlightened with philosophy. I think there's at least some truth to a life of some sort of practice to think clearly of what the truth might be.

Does it have to be ascetic? What if it's a moderated asceticism? Also, what do you make of those who said that we should experience everything there is to experience in life: all along the continuum from the ascetic to the hedonistic?

There was a time when philosophers were somewhat ascetic and celibate, and this was required for the mind to be enlightened with philosophy. I think there's at least some truth to a life of some sort of practice to think clearly of what the truth might be.

Does it have to be ascetic? What if it's a moderated asceticism? Also, what do you make of those who said that we should experience everything there is to experience in life: all along the continuum from the ascetic to the hedonistic?

What is moderated? I suppose not everyone has to be a Diogenes. But a Socrates might be ok.

It's easy to be hedonistic. Our carnal nature desires it. It's hard to avoid it, and this is the idea. A good analogy. I love a juicy steak. If I eat it, I slouch, and am lazy, and want to rest. I might gain some weight after it as well. But if I eat the right vegeterian foods, I'm still more energetic and feel more healthy.

For the philosopher, thinking in a clear way means to go against or remove other "distractions" of carnal desires.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

What is moderated? I suppose not everyone has to be a Diogenes. But a Socrates might be ok.

Actually when I said that I was thinking of a religious figure (Buddha), and how he was an ascetic and then rejected that path for a less ascetic one. But anyone would do. I guess what I was thinking of with moderated asceticism is someone who sleeps as little as needed as opposed to sleeping 4 hours a night on the cold ground, someone who eats as little as needed as opposed to someone who eats bread and water once a day, etc. In other words, someone who doesn't necessarily indulge in a lot of comforts, but who doesn't go to extremes either.

Of course this differs from person to person. I believe it was in the stories of Abba Arsenius in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers that a shepherd was scandalized by the abba sleeping in a bed when sick (maybe even with a pillow?) And someone pointed out that the shepherd slept on the ground and generally just led a tough life all the time, so such things weren't especially difficult for him, but the abba had once had one of the most luxorious lifestyles as a tutor to the emperor's son(s), and thus for him such living as he was doing was quite a change and difficult. With that in mind, I suppose what you consider moderated asceticism isn't what I would, or what someone else would.

Quote

It's easy to be hedonistic. Our carnal nature desires it. It's hard to avoid it, and this is the idea. A good analogy. I love a juicy steak. If I eat it, I slouch, and am lazy, and want to rest. I might gain some weight after it as well. But if I eat the right vegeterian foods, I'm still more energetic and feel more healthy.

First let me say that I am not literally advocating trying everything. If someone doesn't want to go do some heroine with a hooker and then do other activities, that's fine! Even St. Ireneaus said that he did not believe that hedonists like the Carpocratians who spoke of experiencing everything actually meant that literally. Still, if our experiences in life are quite limited, is not our ability to discern and creatively and realistically (ie. accurately) consider also limited? For example, If I had never had sex before, I could still think and speculate about it, but it would most likely be quite different thoughts and speculations as compared to what I would think after having had sex. And this in turn could have an impact on my thoughts and speculations about human beings in general.

Quote

For the philosopher, thinking in a clear way means to go against or remove other "distractions" of carnal desires.

What if the philosophy is built around carnal or natural desires? For example, Arcesilaus, one of the heads of Plato's academy, said we should withhold assent to propositions and simply live our lives according to "the reasonable" (ie. the natural inclinations). And Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates, went further, saying that we should do whatever our desires demanded, without thought to the consequences (even if common sense said that it was a bad decision). They are considered philosophers by many/most, would you argue that they are not?

I already mentioned some that interest me, one being the founder of academic skepticism, Arcesilaus. Other important people related to that form of skepticism included Carneades and Philo of Larissa. I've been meaning to dig more deeply into this subject for a few years now, but haven't managed to get more than a few books a year on it. Most of what we know about it comes through Cicero, and even then it's usually not directly based on the most important philosophers themselves, since Arcesilaus and Carneades didn't write anything down. So, for example, we have:

1) Myself, reading in English the translated works of...2) Cicero, who wrote in Latin, who tried to make sense of...3) Clitomachus and other students of Carneades, who contradicted each other, and who wrote in Greek...4) Leading back to Carneades himself

There's also the problem of not knowing what exactly the early academic skeptics were getting at or trying to do. On it's face the statements attributed to them seems self-contradictory. To say "I know nothing, not even this" isn't exactly helpful or even valid as a stand alone statement. Modern philosophers have tried to make sense of it by placing it in context (Arcesilaus trying to refute Zeno/stoicism, Carneades trying to refute stoicism and epicureanism), but they seem to disagree amongst themselves somewhat.

I already mentioned some that interest me, one being the founder of academic skepticism, Arcesilaus. Other important people related to that form of skepticism included Carneades and Philo of Larissa. I've been meaning to dig more deeply into this subject for a few years now, but haven't managed to get more than a few books a year on it. Most of what we know about it comes through Cicero, and even then it's usually not directly based on the most important philosophers themselves, since Arcesilaus and Carneades didn't write anything down. So, for example, we have:

1) Myself, reading in English the translated works of...2) Cicero, who wrote in Latin, who tried to make sense of...3) Clitomachus and other students of Carneades, who contradicted each other, and who wrote in Greek...4) Leading back to Carneades himself

There's also the problem of not knowing what exactly the early academic skeptics were getting at or trying to do. On it's face the statements attributed to them seems self-contradictory. To say "I know nothing, not even this" isn't exactly helpful or even valid as a stand alone statement. Modern philosophers have tried to make sense of it by placing it in context (Arcesilaus trying to refute Zeno/stoicism, Carneades trying to refute stoicism and epicureanism), but they seem to disagree amongst themselves somewhat.

From my limited exposure to early skepticism, it seems that they wanted to speak in contradication. For them, reason was nothing more than a vehicle for showing how unreasonable reason is. They said that they used reason as a latter to reach skepticism, and once they reached this point, they kicked down the latter. This semester I am taking a course in modern philosophy and we will be addressing the epistemological problems raised by thinkers like Descartes, Hume, Kant, and Hegel. I'm looking forward to this and I think it relates to our discussion of skepticism.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

What is moderated? I suppose not everyone has to be a Diogenes. But a Socrates might be ok.

Actually when I said that I was thinking of a religious figure (Buddha), and how he was an ascetic and then rejected that path for a less ascetic one. But anyone would do. I guess what I was thinking of with moderated asceticism is someone who sleeps as little as needed as opposed to sleeping 4 hours a night on the cold ground, someone who eats as little as needed as opposed to someone who eats bread and water once a day, etc. In other words, someone who doesn't necessarily indulge in a lot of comforts, but who doesn't go to extremes either.

Of course this differs from person to person. I believe it was in the stories of Abba Arsenius in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers that a shepherd was scandalized by the abba sleeping in a bed when sick (maybe even with a pillow?) And someone pointed out that the shepherd slept on the ground and generally just led a tough life all the time, so such things weren't especially difficult for him, but the abba had once had one of the most luxorious lifestyles as a tutor to the emperor's son(s), and thus for him such living as he was doing was quite a change and difficult. With that in mind, I suppose what you consider moderated asceticism isn't what I would, or what someone else would.

Quote

It's easy to be hedonistic. Our carnal nature desires it. It's hard to avoid it, and this is the idea. A good analogy. I love a juicy steak. If I eat it, I slouch, and am lazy, and want to rest. I might gain some weight after it as well. But if I eat the right vegeterian foods, I'm still more energetic and feel more healthy.

First let me say that I am not literally advocating trying everything. If someone doesn't want to go do some heroine with a hooker and then do other activities, that's fine! Even St. Ireneaus said that he did not believe that hedonists like the Carpocratians who spoke of experiencing everything actually meant that literally. Still, if our experiences in life are quite limited, is not our ability to discern and creatively and realistically (ie. accurately) consider also limited? For example, If I had never had sex before, I could still think and speculate about it, but it would most likely be quite different thoughts and speculations as compared to what I would think after having had sex. And this in turn could have an impact on my thoughts and speculations about human beings in general.

Quote

For the philosopher, thinking in a clear way means to go against or remove other "distractions" of carnal desires.

What if the philosophy is built around carnal or natural desires? For example, Arcesilaus, one of the heads of Plato's academy, said we should withhold assent to propositions and simply live our lives according to "the reasonable" (ie. the natural inclinations). And Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates, went further, saying that we should do whatever our desires demanded, without thought to the consequences (even if common sense said that it was a bad decision). They are considered philosophers by many/most, would you argue that they are not?

Hey. Sorry, I"m replying just now. I think ascetism is relative. To each his own. Yes, avoid extremes, but also know thyself is important.

As for the philosophers who advocate doing anything, I wonder what they would say when one truly desires self-harm or the harm of others. I think this is where fear is important. When one lives on the understanding of other people's experiences. That's what keeps us alive as a species anyway. I think that should be self-evident. One good definition of wisdom is that experience that leads you to know and do things in a more informed manner, but also, wisdom has it that you may also live off of other people's experiences. Perhaps, it's not the same level of wisdom, for the one who directly experiences it does not have this burning curiosity that others might, and yet those strong enough to fight against their curiosities may also still obtain that wisdom. And isn't that what philosophy is all about, the love and seeking of philosophy, in hopes you might reach at some form of truth?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

What is moderated? I suppose not everyone has to be a Diogenes. But a Socrates might be ok.

Actually when I said that I was thinking of a religious figure (Buddha), and how he was an ascetic and then rejected that path for a less ascetic one. But anyone would do. I guess what I was thinking of with moderated asceticism is someone who sleeps as little as needed as opposed to sleeping 4 hours a night on the cold ground, someone who eats as little as needed as opposed to someone who eats bread and water once a day, etc. In other words, someone who doesn't necessarily indulge in a lot of comforts, but who doesn't go to extremes either.

Of course this differs from person to person. I believe it was in the stories of Abba Arsenius in the Sayings of the Desert Fathers that a shepherd was scandalized by the abba sleeping in a bed when sick (maybe even with a pillow?) And someone pointed out that the shepherd slept on the ground and generally just led a tough life all the time, so such things weren't especially difficult for him, but the abba had once had one of the most luxorious lifestyles as a tutor to the emperor's son(s), and thus for him such living as he was doing was quite a change and difficult. With that in mind, I suppose what you consider moderated asceticism isn't what I would, or what someone else would.

Quote

It's easy to be hedonistic. Our carnal nature desires it. It's hard to avoid it, and this is the idea. A good analogy. I love a juicy steak. If I eat it, I slouch, and am lazy, and want to rest. I might gain some weight after it as well. But if I eat the right vegeterian foods, I'm still more energetic and feel more healthy.

First let me say that I am not literally advocating trying everything. If someone doesn't want to go do some heroine with a hooker and then do other activities, that's fine! Even St. Ireneaus said that he did not believe that hedonists like the Carpocratians who spoke of experiencing everything actually meant that literally. Still, if our experiences in life are quite limited, is not our ability to discern and creatively and realistically (ie. accurately) consider also limited? For example, If I had never had sex before, I could still think and speculate about it, but it would most likely be quite different thoughts and speculations as compared to what I would think after having had sex. And this in turn could have an impact on my thoughts and speculations about human beings in general.

Quote

For the philosopher, thinking in a clear way means to go against or remove other "distractions" of carnal desires.

What if the philosophy is built around carnal or natural desires? For example, Arcesilaus, one of the heads of Plato's academy, said we should withhold assent to propositions and simply live our lives according to "the reasonable" (ie. the natural inclinations). And Aristippus of Cyrene, a student of Socrates, went further, saying that we should do whatever our desires demanded, without thought to the consequences (even if common sense said that it was a bad decision). They are considered philosophers by many/most, would you argue that they are not?

Hey. Sorry, I"m replying just now. I think ascetism is relative. To each his own. Yes, avoid extremes, but also know thyself is important.

As for the philosophers who advocate doing anything, I wonder what they would say when one truly desires self-harm or the harm of others. I think this is where fear is important. When one lives on the understanding of other people's experiences. That's what keeps us alive as a species anyway. I think that should be self-evident. One good definition of wisdom is that experience that leads you to know and do things in a more informed manner, but also, wisdom has it that you may also live off of other people's experiences. Perhaps, it's not the same level of wisdom, for the one who directly experiences it does not have this burning curiosity that others might, and yet those strong enough to fight against their curiosities may also still obtain that wisdom. And isn't that what philosophy is all about, the love and seeking of philosophy, in hopes you might reach at some form of truth?

In the case of your last question all philosophers seek Him

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

No worries. You must be one of the few around here who has a "real life"

Quote

I think ascetism is relative. To each his own. Yes, avoid extremes, but also know thyself is important.

As for the philosophers who advocate doing anything, I wonder what they would say when one truly desires self-harm or the harm of others. I think this is where fear is important. When one lives on the understanding of other people's experiences. That's what keeps us alive as a species anyway. I think that should be self-evident. One good definition of wisdom is that experience that leads you to know and do things in a more informed manner, but also, wisdom has it that you may also live off of other people's experiences. Perhaps, it's not the same level of wisdom, for the one who directly experiences it does not have this burning curiosity that others might, and yet those strong enough to fight against their curiosities may also still obtain that wisdom. And isn't that what philosophy is all about, the love and seeking of philosophy, in hopes you might reach at some form of truth?

Hmm, well I think I agree with what you are saying here. I'm not sure all would though... some skeptics, for example, might say that we can't or don't or won't find truth. But again, I am not saying this is necessary my own mindset. Regarding self-harm, that's an interesting one, because some people do like to harm themselves or others, and they would consider it a good thing, and even feel deprived or "unfulfilled" when not being harmed. I frankly don't know what to do about such things.

I don't know, we'll have to wait on orthonorm to explain that. Also, he didn't actually say what I attributed to him... not that exact statement, anyway. I'm not sure that he wouldn't agree with the gist of it though.

Did anyone ever try reading to read the earliest Greek philosophers to the latest 20th century ones?

When I was 19 I read through a book that contained some of the general writings of the pre-Socratics, then moved onto Plato, Aristotle, up to Ammonius, getting up to the 19th century. I was always confused a bit by Kant, but, I assumed if I just read him enough I'd understand; I never quite did.

Did anyone ever try reading to read the earliest Greek philosophers to the latest 20th century ones?

When I was 19 I read through a book that contained some of the general writings of the pre-Socratics, then moved onto Plato, Aristotle, up to Ammonius, getting up to the 19th century. I was always confused a bit by Kant, but, I assumed if I just read him enough I'd understand; I never quite did.

I've only read smatterings, like everyone I would guess. I've not had the time/inclination/money to do an in depth study of any one philosopher. Yet. I have a list of books for a couple, but I'm not ready to pull the trigger yet!

Like really man. You think there might be a chance there is something outside of the material? Nope, it can't be abosolutley proven by science. Because we all know science is the arbiter of truth and facts.

And because we can't use the scientific method on God he can't exist! Uh try using a different methodology, good grief..

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

I especially like it when it turns out that your nominally Christian friends are pretty much materialists. Like when I casually mentioned an ascetic practice (wearing no shows) done by Passionists and other RC orders my Catholic buddy told me about how silly it is.

Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Like really man. You think there might be a chance there is something outside of the material? Nope, it can't be abosolutley proven by science. Because we all know science is the arbiter of truth and facts.

And because we can't use the scientific method on God he can't exist! Uh try using a different methodology, good grief..

That pretty much sums it up, if the person is a dogmatic materialist.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Like really man. You think there might be a chance there is something outside of the material? Nope, it can't be abosolutley proven by science. Because we all know science is the arbiter of truth and facts.

And because we can't use the scientific method on God he can't exist! Uh try using a different methodology, good grief..

That pretty much sums it up, if the person is a dogmatic materialist.

Where is TheJackel?

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

A naturalist who isn't afraid of having something called religion or spirituality in their lives. Sometimes it's non-theistic pantheists, sometimes agnostics who are very nature-centric, sometimes it's more like Einstein's famous "cosmic religious feeling," and sometimes it's just outright atheism but with the usage of words like religion to describe part of their lives. The key unifying factors are: 1) they're all naturalists to a large extent, and 2) they are all ok with using the word religion or spirituality to describe some aspect of their lives (whether their morality, meditative practices, their view of a God, or whatever).

They decided to make a new dish for the menu I guess As far as relativism goes, there's probably a good bit of that for many of them, though in certain areas like morality contextualism might be a better term.

They decided to make a new dish for the menu I guess As far as relativism goes, there's probably a good bit of that for many of them, though in certain areas like morality contextualism might be a better term.

Good lord, let's just obfuscate any sort of identity eh? Why do they have to make it so hard to criticze their beliefs.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

Some silly notion about humans being complex or something like that. Jerome A. Stone wrote a fairly good historical overview of the movement: Religious Naturalism Today: The Rebirth of a Forgotten Alternative